A reader writes:
Here’s something I don’t understand: this recent pettiness and blog-style jabs that two guys, Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds, throw at each other. I have been reading the blogs for about 6 years and understood why it was that at one time, links and praise between the two of them made sense. But now it seems that neither understands that there is a different way of blogging and putting one’s personality across. Glenn is more upbeat and has less passion for political philosophy differences. A lot of the linked-to news is upbeat. Glenn’s trademark is the three letter commentary.
Andrew is very open and personal on his blog. He lets the world hear about his personal life’s details: his family, his physical ailments, his pets, music, religion. Andrew also blogs in a stream of consciousness way so that mental contradictions happen. If one watches a breaking story on the cable news channels, one can see that reporters get it wrong, then somewhat right, then wrong again, and finally figure out what truly happened in time for the evening news. The stream of consciousness-like writing means that one will contradict himself as he formulates an opinion for the column or book. Since both bloggers write columns and books, evidence of contradictions or lack of convictions should be found in those mediums, not the blogs themselves.
Both bloggers have much more in common philosophically than they have in conflict. I love reading both blogs to be exposed, in ways that seem to connect to me, to the latest in electronic gadgetry, porkbusting, space stuff, philosophy, discussions within conservatism, gay things, and a general holding of feet to the fire. This leads me to another question. Is it that libertarian-ish thinking people don’t come together in a meaningful political way because we find other people who think like us to be, well … pricks?
How to respond? I think the reader has some good points. I’m not sure what Glenn thinks. I do believe there’s a reason that libertarian types do not form movements. We’re not joiners by temperament. I think what distinguishes us is occasional orneriness. But the joy of the blogosphere is what this reader has figured out. Don’t just read one blog. Read a lot. Enjoy the disagreements when they help illuminate real issues. And don’t forget that behind these screens are humans: full of vanity, wounded pride, moods, misunderstanding, and occasional sulks.
The Dish 